Diablo 3 - A Message From Jay

Part of the problem, however, is not just item drops, but the variety of things to do within the game. Many of you have stated that there needs to be more to the game than just the item hunt, and we agree completely. The Paragon system is a step in the right direction, giving meta-progress for your time in the game, but it does little to address the variety of activities you can do while playing. I don't think theres a silver-bullet solution to this problem, but I do think we can make this aspect of the game better, and as such we're planning more than just PvP for the next major patch. Not trying to be coy, but we're still firming things up and will talk about this as soon as we can.
Difficulty has been a constant source of division when discussing the game. Some players believe Diablo has never been about crushing challenges, but more about efficiency and farming. Some players want a game that tests them to their limits. Neither player is wrong. As it stands, Diablo III simply does not provide the tools to allow players to scale the game challenge to something appropriate for them. We set Inferno as the high watermark and took a one-size-fits-all approach to game challenge. Later in the development of Diablo II, the 'players 8' command — which let people set monster difficulty — was added to address this issue, and we're considering something similar for the next major Diablo III patch to allow players to make up their own minds about how hard or how easy is right for them.

Originally Posted by Jay Wilsonbut it does little to address the variety of activities you can do while playing

Here's the thing I do not get about the criticism. To me Diablo 1 and 2 was little more sophisticated than Tetris or PacMan in variety. Once I played the game through once I was done. I couldn't feel any reason to do it all over again on a greater difficulty and I just cannot grasp why people still play Diablo 2. Unless you see slight increase in numbers as content you are done. I guess it's something similar to chess, people gets used to it's simplicity and wish to see if they can master it and take it to another level. But that say more about the players than the game.

Thing is, you can't grasp a cult by analyzing it's source. You can't analyze the game to figure out how to build a cult-game because it's cult status never came from the game itself. Any shitty game can become a cultural phenomenon and it cannot be explained by analyzing the game, but only how the players popularized it. Speedruns is an example of this phenomenon. World of Warcraft is an example of this phenomenon. Slender is an example of this phenomenon.

I spent more time with Diablo 3 than with Diablo 2 simply because there was more content in it. More to explore. Once I am done, I am done and only expansions and DLC's will provide with more experience.

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by JemyM
Here's the thing I do not get about the criticism. To me Diablo 1 and 2 was little more sophisticated than Tetris or PacMan in variety. Once I played the game through once I was done. I couldn't feel any reason to do it all over again on a greater difficulty and I just cannot grasp why people still play Diablo 2. Unless you see slight increase in numbers as content you are done. I guess it's something similar to chess, people gets used to it's simplicity and wish to see if they can master it and take it to another level. But that say more about the players than the game.

The primary reason was to replay the game to try a new build. It was a challenge to come up with the most efficient builds - especially for PvP.

Coming up with unique and powerful builds became increasingly challenging, as more and more people got involved and posted their experiences on websites.

Beyond that, there was the ladder mode - where people competed for getting to max level as fast as possible.

I spent more time with Diablo 3 than with Diablo 2 simply because there was more content in it. More to explore. Once I am done, I am done and only expansions and DLC's will provide with more experience.

Have you considered that the reason you like Diablo 3 isn't because it's better than Diablo 2 - but because it's different and you - personally - appreciate this difference?

Once you reach Inferno - you will probably start to appreciate the value of efficient builds and how important your understanding of mechanics become.

Hell difficulty in Diablo 2 was very similar - and the most challenging parts of the game is the most motivating for optimised play and builds.

Originally Posted by bloodlover
Diablo 2 was much better in terms of content. Builds offered more diversity, there was higher replay value overall, sets were really cool just to collect, runewards etc.

I agree but wouldn't really categorise all of that as "content". Well, the items are naturally part of the content - but I wouldn't say better items are MORE content.

I actually think Diablo 3 is better in terms of unique content, because they introduced a variety of minor events that really do change as you progress through the game.

The cinematic quality is also much better, as is the moment-to-moment gameplay.

With short-term, I'm talking about the Normal - Hell progression experience. The game starts falling apart in Inferno - which is kinda where Diablo 2 started to get interesting (though it was Hell, not Inferno).

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The primary reason was to replay the game to try a new build. It was a challenge to come up with the most efficient builds - especially for PvP.

Coming up with unique and powerful builds became increasingly challenging, as more and more people got involved and posted their experiences on websites.

Beyond that, there was the ladder mode - where people competed for getting to max level as fast as possible.

Like chess and speedruns. If there weran't a huge community around it and if it didn't have the cultural recognition you would probably not have bothered at all.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Have you considered that the reason you like Diablo 3 isn't because it's better than Diablo 2 - but because it's different and you - personally - appreciate this difference?

No. I tried D3 because it was popular. Blizzards games are always popular and very polished so I tend to try them to form my own opinion. Based on games I like D3 takes a step in the right direction, but it's a long walk. There are a ton of things that I enjoy that D3 do not have that if I had the chance would implement myself.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Once you reach Inferno - you will probably start to appreciate the value of efficient builds and how important your understanding of mechanics become.

Hell difficulty in Diablo 2 was very similar - and the most challenging parts of the game is the most motivating for optimised play and builds.

Probably. For a game based on gameplay the several-days-long-tutorial known as normal and nightmare difficulty is something I would like to skip.

Question though if you reached inferno, do you keep your equipment and money from difficulty to difficulty and do they share the same auction house?

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by JemyM
Like chess and speedruns. If there weran't a huge community around it and if it didn't have the cultural recognition you would probably not have bothered at all.

Ladder? Yes. I can't speak too much about it - because it never appealed to me. That said, it goes without saying that inter-human competition requires other people to participate. Personally, I don't need more than a single human opponent to feel engaged, if the game is sufficiently interesting.

I'm not what you'd call a very community-driven individual.

I do love experimenting with builds, especially for the strategic aspect of coming up with a plan and seeing if it works.

Not unlike Magic the Gathering, when you construct decks and then see how they play against other people.

No. I tried D3 because it was popular. Blizzards games are always popular and very polished so I tend to try them to form my own opinion. Based on games I like D3 takes a step in the right direction, but it's a long walk. There are a ton of things that I enjoy that D3 do not have that if I had the chance would implement myself.

I think they've improved a few of the core aspects - and significantly failed in some of the most vital ones.

I'd probably be more impressed if it hadn't been 12 years since the last game.

I'm ok with them trying new things, but they could have done so much more with content/dynamic quests and so on.

Probably. For a game based on gameplay the several-days-long-tutorial known as normal and nightmare difficulty is something I would like to skip.

Question though if you reached inferno, do you keep your equipment and money from difficulty to difficulty and do they share the same auction house?

Yes, you keep everything throughout - and you have access to the same gold/real-money action houses all the way.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm not what you'd call a very community-driven individual.

You do not need to be, but meaningfulness tend to be attached to other people doing the same thing or there being at least the potential that other people might be interested in what you do. People rarely master something for themselves if there are nothing to be gained from it and social recognition is one such gain. A challenge for oneself which is not recognized as a challenge and have no utility beyond the challenge itself is meaningless.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm ok with them trying new things, but they could have done so much more with content/dynamic quests and so on.

Haven't finished the game yet but Diablo 3 add several NPC's (companions and artisans) with their own dialogue that all seems to hint about additional content but then end in nothingness. In many modern RPG's such as Biowares games, fallout or even Dungeon Siege 2, the reward for spending times with companions often leads you to a subquest but this didn't happen in D3 unless they all come in the end of Act 4. There isn't much of unlockable sidecontent or major sidequest beyond the easteregg and all side dungeons are very short.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yes, you keep everything throughout - and you have access to the same gold/real-money action houses all the way.

Ok, good to know.

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by JemyM
You do not need to be, but meaningfulness tend to be attached to other people doing the same thing or there being at least the potential that other people might be interested in what you do. People rarely master something for themselves if there are nothing to be gained from it and social recognition is one such gain. A challenge for oneself which is not recognized as a challenge and have no utility beyond the challenge itself is meaningless.

I don't disagree, but I think we're talking about pretty obvious stuff here

That said, I don't think challenging oneself is meaningless - but one might argue it's impossible to exclude the community, seeing as how we live in the world - whether we do things alone or not.

Haven't finished the game yet but Diablo 3 add several NPC's (companions and artisans) with their own dialogue that all seems to hint about additional content but then end in nothingness. In many modern RPG's such as Biowares games, fallout or even Dungeon Siege 2, the reward for spending times with companions often leads you to a subquest but this didn't happen in D3 unless they all come in the end of Act 4. There isn't much of unlockable sidecontent or major sidequest beyond the easteregg and all side dungeons are very short.

The NPCs are actually a pretty significant new feature in Diablo 3. Much more expanded than they were in Diablo 2.

I can't say I care about the things you're after when I'm playing a game like this. It would most likely distract from the things I enjoy the most about Diablo.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Once I played the game through once I was done. I couldn't feel any reason to do it all over again

[snip]

I have a similar problem with RTS games. I once played Civ IV, a really good game, but when I was through it, I never felt to replay it again.
It was to me as if I had seen all of the mechanics already.

—  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I have a similar problem with RTS games. I once played Civ IV, a really good game, but when I was through it, I never felt to replay it again, I really don't know why. It was to me as if I had seen all of the mechanics already.

Edit : And it is especially strong with RTS to me - that's why I haven't bought an RTS game in ages !

TBS is a bit better - you at least get space to think !

—  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Yes, and I loved developing strategies back when I played AOW very excessively …

—  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)